I want to thank you for your efforts through the years as you have served the
Lord with this publication. I did enjoy the two papers, each a part three of
a series. Two minor matters were observed in the Volume 31, September (1979)
issue that I might bring to your attention. I suspect, however, that you will
receive mail from others on this subject as well. On page 160 about
three inches
down in the right hand column, Martin LaBar criticizes the book he
is reviewing
by pointing out that Luke 3 gives the genealogy of Joseph, but Dowell says it
is of Mary. Most conservative Bible interpreters feel that Luke 3 does indeed
give the genealogy of Mary. In fact, many of the editions of she King James
translation list a Luke 3:23 marginal reference as
"son-in-law" instead
of "son" of Heli. Why Joseph would have been called son of Fteli is
a subject of speculation. Perhaps Heli had only daughters and,
therefore, Joseph
would have become his legal son. The clear difference in the genealogies of
Luke and Matthew pose no small problem otherwise. It is entirely consistent
with what we know of the authors to conclude that Matthew would
have given Joseph's
genealogy which, of course, was the legal right to David's throne.
Luke, being
a Greek and also being a physician and also showing considerable interest in
women and children, would be more likely to give Mary's genealogy
or the biological
genealogy if anyone were to do so. I cannot tell you exactly why
the word "son"
is used and not "son-in-law," but I would prefer to leave son-in-law
as a marginal reference until better information comes in.

Another letter that I'm sure you're going to get some flack concerning is the
one on homosexuality. It bothers me that Mr. Hamby Jr., like so
many other defenders
of homosexuals, completely ignores such passages as Romans 1:27. He
claims that
Paul's exposure to homosexuality was very limited. I think this
passage clearly
indicates that Paul knew exactly what he was talking about and condemns the
practice in the strongest possible terms. To suggest that a stable homosexual
"love" relationship is somehow a normal relationship flies in the
face of both Scripture and good sense.